Long v. Municipal Court

[384]

Opinion

THE COURT.

*

David Long appeals from a judgment denying a writ of mandamus to compel respondent municipal court to grant discovery in a pending misdemeanor case in which appellant is defendant.

Appellant had presented in the municipal court a declaration in support of subpoena duces tecum, executed by counsel, in which it was related that appellant would plead self-defense to the charges of assaulting and obstructing a police officer, that he had no access to the personnel records of the police department, and

that

the chief

of

police had in his possession the following items necessary for the preparation of a defense:

“1) Verbatim copies of all reports or records of complaints alleging the use of excessive force or violence in arrests made by Officer S. Bennett, 6914P and Officer Hughes, 6826P, in the course of their employment by the Oakland Police Department.

“2) Verbatim copies of all investigative reports made as a result of complaints alleging excessive use of force or violence by aforesaid Officer S. Bennett and Officer Hughes in the course of their employment by the Oakland Police Department.

“3) Names and addresses of all persons who have complained to the Oakland Police Department of excessive use of force or violence by Officer S. Bennett and Officer Hughes.”

The prosecutor did not claim privilege under Evidence Code section 1040. The municipal court, acting on the authority of

Pitchess

v.

Superior Court

(1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 [113 Cal.Rptr. 897, 522 P.2d 305], determined that the records in question were potentially discoverable and directed the custodian of records to bring them into court for a determination as to whether the records contained information which should be made available to the defense. The court examined the records